Monday 25th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

letter to prue

tops

An open letter to Prue McSween from Gus Leonisky

Dear Prue
It's time we had a little chat, head to head...


I do not know where you're coming from — for example if the carbon lobby is paying you to appear as the global warming anti-information bitch, but your angry shitty polemic supporting the carbon industry on Channel Seven smells of sulfur. You may be genuinely concerned about losing some of your and our (thank you) "carbon" comforts and you may believe that global warming is crap. But I still smell the sulfur nonetheless — Too much aggression, too much anger, too much fibbing flap...

Sure, the present events in the Arab world might do more to reduce our consumption of petroleum products than a carbon tax ever would — at this stage. But the idea presently is to change our perception about what we do next. Should we carry on acting our life with a habit of slash-and-burn for pleasure till we run out of things to burn or should we shift into a habit of caring a bit more for this planet — which at present is the only one we've got.

Some people would think that slashing and burning, while compassionately looking after their mad barking dogs, is a way to care, but these are sadists who love to hurt others for vicarious pleasure in this world — or for profit. Others are masochists who don't mind the pain.  Monks whip themselves for christ sake... Of course there are excuses and mitigating porkies that tells us they also flog us so we can go to heaven.

The religious peddlers push the concept of the grass being greener on the other side of the Styx, but let's be real here, it's a bit of a crock, isn't it? We manufacture illusions and lies in order to create and protect our comforts (moral, philosophical and material). Some of what we do hits the mark and some remain totally illusionary and plain wrong. But this is another story for another time.

It's the privilege of politicians to tell us the truth — or whatever rot — while not believing in it. Like Kevin Rudd telling us that global warming is the greatest threat to humanity, then becoming pragmatically impotent about it. Or like the Little Shit Abbott, who — as the bully sociopath he appears to be to me — tells us global warming is crap while getting his crook information from his confessor George Pell who gets his skewed information from that pseudo-self important non-climatic scientist Ian Plimer, all to suit the catholic fantasy and the mining enthusiasts...

At this stage, I do not know if Little Shit Abbott believes that global warming is crap or not since one day he also said that climate change isn't crap... Little Shit Abbott is one windbag ready to change his mind and beliefs according to the direction where the voters — mostly those ignorant bums who listen to the igno-rants of an Alan Jones on this subject (and a few others doozies) — fart.

The point here is that global warming is REAL. Even NASA, a fairly respected body in doing spectacular things, can tell us by its observations that this planet surface is warming up and has been doing so for the last 150 years in a weird and surprising manner. What is also noted by scientists who work on this subject is that this warming appears to be exponential. they know it is not. My own research tells me the increase is a complex sinusoidal-parabolic curve with a hint of pseudo-exponentialism in it. The key would be to find the "base turning point" (I place it at 1996)... But let's leave the maths to the mathematicians and statisticians on this subject (and to a bit latter on, in the second part of this letter), meanwhile we need to understand what this means for us, where does this warming comes from, and if it continue — what consequences can come of it. For some people it's a bit like looking in a crystal ball — yet we know a lot more about where we're coming from.

Weather people who predict the paths of cyclones, hurricane and typhoons know historical patterns of their kind and also know a few things about momentum. A cyclone is like a giant top. The faster it spins the hardest it is to make it change course, the bigger it is the harder it is to make it change course. No matter what comes in their paths — lows, highs, troughs — cyclones will move on regardless, though interference can reduce or increase their impact depending on what happens in these contact. Land usually acts as a brake — though in some places, it acts as a crude catalyst to warm and cold air pockets, such as in the formation of tornadoes. Ultimately, "we use tops" inside gyroscopes to maintain direction... And the more spin the spin-doctors spin, the more difficult it is for the truth to come out... It's their job to halt reality with bullshit and protect their clients need...

Till about 150 years there was only ONE "average" natural carbon cycle on earth. Lengthy and complex studies of the dynamics of the surface of the earth would place the last major carbon "super-cycle" at about 120 million years ago or such. This was the last time when massive amounts of carbon were sequestered below the surface. Sure, carbon is sequestered below the surface daily in the seas at the bottom of oceans and other places, but the ones that really count are places like continental shelves or massive bogs... It takes a very long time to turn a bog into a coal seam... It takes a long time to sequester carbon.

So till about 150 years ago humanity subsisted on burning surface carbon. In a way, it was "re"-cycled back into the natural carbon equilibrium, though some brave scientists in specialised fields harbour the theory that the last big melt was helped along by humans burning large forests. Burning forests would have induced massive release of CO2 and removed some of the ability of the earth to "re"-cycle it fast enough. Time is the essence in these processes... The geological record shows an enormous amount of ash from wood-burning (not volcanoes) associated with this warming period.

A big warming event happened anyhow. an increase of about 5-6 degrees C globally, inducing MASSIVE sea-level rise. Aboriginal people recorded the event. The catalogue of fish in the overhangs of Arnhem Land show a dramatic artistic representational change. Freshwater species were replaced by saltwater fish species. Rivers became estuaries. Plains became sea.

So till about 150 years ago — after this warming of 12,000 years ago, which some other scientists in specialised fields, concluded would be followed by a cooling period, according to the patterns of the geological periods we're living in — we humans were subsisting on burning wood and some "natural" oils, such as mutton grease. For this country, it may have been kangaroo fat, which is not much, considering the leanness of the beast.

As an aside, when I arrived in Freemantle in 1971, (mah Dear, you weren't born then!) I though all the fast food joint used the bleeding thing for frying fish, chips, burgers, sausages and anything that had the unfortunate end of being dipped in it at the same time. I soon discovered that it was something else used for frying (old dripping) which was not much better. At the time, it deeply hurt my sense of smell and of refined Yourpean cuisine (except for most of the Danish horrible cooking). But this story is for another day...

Yes mah Dear, we are living on a dynamic earth, where many events have changed the surface over eons going back to even before life on earth was a soup in the oceans, and land masses were united in Pangea-Gondwana. The atmosphere would have been toxic to humans then. The surface heat would have been deadly. These concepts are scientifically correct. They are of course erroneous to the flat-earth theorists, to the christian fundamentalist and other fundamentalists of whatever creed — and to the carbon industry front-end pedlars. The people at the back, doing the mining and the extracting work, know these complexities too well. Evolution, these changes of the surface and the life it engendered are part of this little planet that eventually gave us our existence and the ability to sustain it — as brief as it is for us, individual midgets...

So 150 years ago, we discovered the hidden treasure: the buried carbon... Sure, some coal had been used before by humans but in quite negligible quantity — used especially to "manufacture" weapon grade steel swords, cannons and pointed arrows. But till 150 years ago, it was mostly surface coal burnt for this sort of capers...

The newly discovered  carbon had been buried for millions of years... The rest of course is the history of the industrial revolution, in tandem with the "privatisation" of ideas and inventions. At first, our growing cities became sooty slave-dens, so we invented better ways to burn and use this "new" carbon (coal). Less soot, more heat, more coal — less slaves dying from coal dust....

Petroleum, which had also been used in very small quantities till then (surface petroleum from tar pits) was soon online to become a magic product. Applied scientists invented "Cracking" to break down the heavier molecules. Refining crude oil became a gigantic activity for humanity. And the more we refined, the more we, the plebs, were pushed to consume. Nature had provided us with a bountiful cheap source of energy and stuff... We obliged...

Yes mah Dear, we were in carbon heaven. But as you know, there are always two sides to the coin in such stories... There is the original sin in some narratives and the yin-yang in others.

In relative terms, there is some elasticity in the universe according to Relativity — a theory that is simply expressed but is far more complex than say global warming to comprehend. Einstein knew the drill, at one end he knew how to give simple grabs to the adoring pubic via a well orchestrated public-relation mind, while in the back room the mathematics were mind-blogging. It worked for him and his vision. Should he still be alive, he would be appalled by the climate change denier and would help us make strides to protect us from what "we" have unleashed. Of all people he would know. "World War IV will be fought with stone axes" he proclaimed soon after having assisted the birth of the nuclear age...

Yes mah Dear, the carbon heaven may have a down side... possibly warming the future beyond our comprehension. Thus we need science to tell us what is going on. Is the undeniable warming due to our carbon usage? This is the multi-trillion dollar question. IS HUMAN PRODUCTION OF CO2 WARMING UP THE ATMOSPHERE?

The answer in a nutshell is yes. The real answer is very very very complex. It's much easier to deny it and get on with our burning of more and more EXTRA carbon. The price at the end — there is never an end per se, though — will be heavy to pay. We might get banned from paradise...

But we are gamblers, aren't we? It's like the forbidden fruit...  Gambling is what makes the human "greedy spirit" work. There was this "economist" the other day in one of the major papers contemplating the idea of forever measured capitalist growth... "What an idiot!" I thought, despite all his well-presented arguments and impeccable university credentials. I've been there before. Universities in three major continents have developed irrefutable mathematical models that the capitalist system relies on booms and busts in order to recycle the loot faster. Imagine a banker placing his money at a sure 3 per cent per annum bet, year after year after year. He'd be bored out of his bleeding mind!!! No thrill of the chase, of the kill... No double or nothing? Pitiful bonuses!!! Yar gotta be kidding!!! That's why they invented "derivatives"!!! Presently a single wrong derivative bet could burn the entire world economy twice over... I jest a bit here but you get the drift.

Yes mah Dear Prue, carbon dioxide IS a global WARMING gas. Nitrogen (see "of farts and nitrogen" article on this site) isn't, contrary to what Pell and Plimer peddle. In the last 150 years we've added roughly 100 ppm of CO2 into our fish bowl... according to climate-change serious scientists, this has raised the average temperature of the globe by about one (1) degree C...

We're adding about 2 ppm of CO2 per year at the moment. By 2100, we will have added another 300 ppm due to increase population and energy supplies — and the lack of doing anything about our emissions of CO2.

Anyone who says that this won't have an effect in the dynamics of the atmosphere is negligent or criminal. Take your pick...

Next in the Dear Prue letter: How Global Warming Works and the Role Humans Play in it.

dear prue (part two)

Mah Dear Prue,
A day ago, some suburbs of Perth had a mini storm that wrecked havoc. This happened after a RECORD long heat wave and unusual winds from the east in WA. The water shortage in Perth has been critical for yonks and the rain yearly average has been declining since the 1940s at a rate of knots. They had to build a desalination plant and they are building another one or two. This goes against the worldwide trend of humidification of the atmosphere. But as we know nothing is equal everywhere on the surface of the planet. there are places with hot dry weather and other places with hot humid weather on the same latitudes. Continental masses play a big part in redistributing heat and humidity away from the oceans. This process is not new, nor are the long droughts and the floods in this country. What is new is the "extra energy" added into the atmosphere by a MEASURABLE extra CO2.

Since the early 1600s, humans have plonked a thermometer in the arse of the earth to measure the rise and fall of heat. Atmospheric pressure and humidity measure followed. Why would they do this soon after the inquisition had reigned? Renaissance? There would have been no way the measurements could influence nature and the seasons, thus it was only done "for the record" and studies of trends. After a few years, trends would give a better understanding of weather patterns and eventually this would give clues as to the optimum times for sowing, for example. Some very specific criteria were devised as not to influence the readings. Eventually readings were and some still are made in a little slatted wooden box in which the ambient temperature is measured in the shade. New devices such as satellite have given a broader scope for observation. Even in the little boxes, temperatures could be measured accurately to a tenth of a degree, back in those days of horse and cart.

But before going any further I would like to point out, mah Dear, that you are a professional talker, spinner, spruiker and in any debate on this subject, a professional scientist is a... professional scientist.

Not many scientists have communication motor-mouth skills at the level you have, mah Dear, and from your position you can control the polemic. Facts and figures are dry uninteresting arguments and while it appears you don't understand any of these, you can get away with bull brilliantly... As a scientist is about to open his/her trap to present another boring piece of data, you talk over him/her with excellent patronising and somehow measured aggressive skills. It makes great television. It makes a very poor information channel... No-one is the wiser, the scientist goes back in his/her box and the clock is ticking... A job well done for the denying side...

Thus, the viewers have had their dose of mindless entertainment, while the arguments — which are not much more than facts and figures — to explain global warming have not been aired. I must say here, mah Dear, that some greenies have gone bonkers on the other side of the scale and presented an Armageddon picture of global warming... It is not.
Global warming deserves a more serious image than a fake religious overtone that preys on people's own mortality and a more serious image that an earth spinning like a top (see my lousy toon at top).

So what do scientific experiments and measurements tell us?
I quote:
"The greenhouse effect was first notice by a man named Joseph Fourier in 1824. But it wasn’t really explored until 1896 by a man named Svante Arrhenius. He discovered the absorption of radiation by the atmosphere that actually warms a planet.

If there weren’t any of those greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide [and water vapour, adds Gus] the planet would be about 30 degrees Celsius cooler than it is. The greenhouse effect really has nothing to do with actual greenhouses... " etc.

I quote from another source:
"The next major scientist to consider the Earth's temperature was another man with broad interests, Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm. He too was attracted by the great riddle of the prehistoric ice ages, and he saw CO2 as the key. Why focus on that rare gas rather than water vapor, which was far more abundant? Because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere fluctuated daily, whereas the level of CO2 was set over a geological timescale by emissions from volcanoes. If the emissions changed, the alteration in the CO2 greenhouse effect would only slightly change the global temperature — but that would almost instantly change the average amount of water vapor in the air, which would bring further change through its own greenhouse effect. Thus the level of CO2 acted as a regulator of water vapor, and ultimately determined the planet’s long-term equilibrium temperature.

In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. But this idea could only answer the riddle of the ice ages if such large changes in atmospheric composition really were possible. For that question Arrhenius turned to a colleague, Arvid Högbom. It happened that Högbom had compiled estimates for how carbon dioxide cycles through natural geochemical processes, including emission from volcanoes, uptake by the oceans, and so forth. Along the way he had come up with a strange, almost incredible new idea.
It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas..."

These were scientifically made observations without ANY OTHER PURPOSE than observing. No political polemic, no words about "global warming".

The point is that since the 1950's, scientists have noted we've added far more CO2 in the atmosphere that can be reabsorbed by "natural" processes. This excess is PRESENTLY warming the atmosphere according to Högbom and Arrhenius calculations and more recent science studies and experiments HAVE CONFIRMED this. Such observation have shown irrefutably (except for flat-earth theorists, fundamentalists of whatever creed and morons) that an increase of CO2 is changing the average amount and performance of water in the atmosphere. The processes are complex and to show the exact calculation and observation would take another several thousand pages of data here. BUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 AND WARMING OF THE ATMOSPHERE IS SCIENTIFICALLY UNDENIABLE. Furthermore some new peer-reviewed papers just published confirm this link.

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. IT IS CO2 INDUCED AT PRESENT and most of the CO2 inducing it comes from our CARBON economy.

So, what effects have been observed so far?

Increase humidity in most parts of the world, polar melts, glacier melts, increasing frequency of an unusual array of bigger storms with devastating floods, sea rising in some areas, increase temperature average trend of 0.05 degree C per year, acidification of oceans and more — ALL IN LINE WITH PREVIOUS RECORDS OF CO2 increase in the atmosphere—  despite what some sneaky pseudo-scientists object to... Sure, there are anomalies in some of the record, but other factors have been at play then... AT PRESENT, AFTER HAVING ALLOWED FOR ALL OTHER FACTORS (earth wobble, volcanoes, sun activity, other greenhouse gases et al) global warming rests fair and square with the extra CO2 added by human activity... and the methane. Let's not forget this gas which is 10 times more greenhousey than CO2 but tends to breakdown somewhat fast. Human activity is also producing this EXTRA methane, including the methane from permafrost and bogs that are defrosting from present human induced global warming.

So where do we go from here to eternity, mah Dear?...

At present the world economy pays zilch attention to global warming... Sure, a few 'policies" have been put in place to encourage "renewable" sources of energies but our heart is not in it... We like a bargain and CARBON is at bargain price in whatever form we use, even with the events in Libya. The Saud king has promised to produce more oil to make up the short-fall and stabilise the world BARGAIN price — all while making EXTRA profit... And carbon is so easy to use — just light a match and that's it.

But then a bit of warming never hurt anybody, has it?... Some industry captains aware of the reality of global warming have turned the table and pronounced without flinching that warming is good for us. The brilliant cads... My hat to them, mah Dear...

But this does not stack up. Studies of the past geological events tell us that with warming and cooling come some big changes in climatic conditions — some beneficial for some areas and some very dramatic in other places. At present if the ENTIRE world reduces emissions of CO2 by 60 per cent by 2050 (based on 2000 levels), we would only have an increase of world average temperature of 2 degrees C by 2100 (but still going up). Fact.

What does 2 degrees C mean for the world climate?

This is the zillion-dollars question. Bigger storms in most places, sea level rising by at least 40 centimetres worldwide, devastation in many parts of the globe and possibly cooler average temperatures in say Britain while other places will cook in the sun. Predictions of such are hard to make with a degree of accuracy BUT things will change and not for the best, you can trust me on that, mah Dear...

And this is the minimum trouble... Because what chance have we got to reduce our emissions of CO2 by 60 per cent when, by 2050, the world will have eaten more food, between now and then, than in the previous 8000 years (latest figure release from the United nations). Energy demand, between now and then, will also grow at more than twice than the demand for food.

We are in trouble already and we don't know it. We prefer our comforts of now and say "que sera sera" to the future. If we had said the same when the ozone layer was being depleted, we'd be in deep shit. Lucky some clever SCIENTISTS found the cause and government around the world acted pronto without much fuss.

Our problem now is that we have to do something far more drastic than the elimination of of CFCs WORLDWIDE. We have to dismantle our carbon economy WORLDWIDE to avoid say a 4 to 6 degrees C increase by 2100. And an increase of 9 degrees C may not be out of the question for 2150.

The future of this planet is in our hand. SCIENCE HAS PROVEN we are inducing the climate shift.

I'll be long dead when the shit hits the fan, but it's not an excuse for doing nothing about it now, mah Dear. If you have not understood any of the explanation here, there is nothing more I can do for you. Stay in your ignorant and comfortable little hole. Keep spruiking for the deniers? I don't really care if you do. I said what I had to say..

Have a good day.

prue2

yessir...

The Herald is wrong to disparagingly conclude the climate debate is between ''scientists'' on the one side and a ''motley collection'' of politicians, clerics and entertainers on the other (''The climate crunch'', May 24).

Just because a ''climate scientist'' is on the record acknowledging relationships between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, human activity and temperature does not mean he or she espouses the apocalyptic doomsday scenarios generated by the computer modelling.

Indeed, the ''climate scientist'', as opposed to the ''climate commentator'', is ordinarily quick to acknowledge that such computer models contain known and unknown structural inadequacies.

This debate should not be tribal, where we are tagged as being in one camp or the other. There is room for acceptance of some elements, and concurrent scepticism of others.

The Herald does nothing to advance the debate by acting as a cheer squad for one tribe.

Mitch Geddes Killara


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/there-will-be-no-clear-winners-in-this-debate-20110524-1f2bh.html#ixzz1NJLgk7ye

----------------
Gus: two things Mitch... On one side you have Hitler and on the other side you have the good guys... Should the Herald advance the debate by sitting on the fence? Second, most if not all "climate commentators" such as Jones and Bolt have NO IDEA of the science involved in climate change.
Furthermore, the known and unknown strutural inadequacies in computer modelling of climate change are on the same par as those predicting the path of cyclones... basically accurate to 99 per cent of prediction RANGE. For example, in my book, the range of prediction may be that the sea level rise due to global warming sits between 45 centimetres and six metres by 2100... What will happen is probably in the middle lower range, say two metres.
Meanwhile as we have seen this year, an event like La Nina riding on top of a significant global warming (the last few years have been record warming despite what the denialists try to convince us to the contrary) increase the drama content of its effect. The latest tornado season in America being in line with (or ahead of) predictions.
The scientists who create climate modelling do not do it flippantly. There is a great amount of scientific care plus an emormous amount of data and trends being crunched in, with an element of error factored in (unsually making the modelling very conservative — yet so far, most models predictions have been outdone by the reality of events). All in all, these models give a picture of what's coming next: more extremes in weather conditions, a rise of global average temperture and a rise of sea level. The condition of these are made worse by the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. And most of the CO2 presently being released into the atmosphere comes from human activities. The good guys are telling you this out of their good heart because they WANT US TO BE PREPARED AND TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. The denialists Hitler are just that, Hitler, with a greater voice because they control the spruiking media — and the money guys who do not want to do anything that could hinder the present model of their money making activities will pay them big bucks to spruik loud.
The Herald is right to support the science. The science is right, the predictions are with a range plus and plus high... with a far greater accuracy than political polls...
read the letter to Prue at top... it might make some sense...

killing science, then killing the planet...

A number of the country's top climate change scientists, including several at the Australian National University (ANU), have been targeted by death threats and abusive phone calls for months.

But the situation has now worsened, and ANU has moved its scientists to a more secure location and introduced other security measures.

Professor David Koroly from the University of Melbourne says he receives threats every time he is interviewed by the media.

"It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised threats to discourage scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio," he said.

"It is still very important that climate scientists present the best available information to the community, to the business community and to politicians and that we seek to protect our individual safety, but that we still provide the best available climate science."

ANU vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says scientists at the university in Canberra have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.

He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks.

"Obviously climate research is an emotive issue at the present time," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/05/3235810.htm

new research on sea level rise...

Federal Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says the research is designed to help people adapt.

"We've got to do the work to understand what the potential risks are so we can prepare for it," he said.

"One thing obviously we have to do is cut our pollution in partnership with other nations internationally, but we've also got to make sure that we adapt to the potential consequences of climate change and that's what this report is intended to understand."

He says 85 per cent of Australia's infrastructure is along the coast line.

"The sea level rise of up to 1.1 metre, which is at the high end of the scenarios that the scientists are suggesting, would have a devastating impact, as much as $266 billion worth of potential damage and loss," he said.

Meanwhile, thousands of people have taken to the streets across Australia to rally in favour of putting a price on carbon.

Unions have joined with groups, including the Climate Institute and Greenpeace, in a campaign to "Say Yes" to cutting pollution and taking action on climate change.

ACTU secretary Jeff Lawrence says the rallies are designed to calm the heated debate surrounding the carbon tax.

"This is just the start and we really need to push back against against this sort of attempt to create a Tea Party movement in Australia, we need to ensure there's a mature debate on these issues," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/05/3235873.htm?section=justin

shockjocks, selling crooked plates...

...

They are the cane toads of contemporary culture: ugly, ubiquitous, toxic to most other life forms and adept at using their peculiar behaviour to force change in ours.

It's not so much that they're rude, lowbrow or just plain wrong, although these, too, are often the case. The most destructive effect of the shock-jockariat is the poisoning of the logic-well itself; followed by the incremental death of the argument tree that is root and branch of intelligent civilisation.


<i></i>

Take Alan Jones. Though it pains me to say it, he is forcing me to change my mind. Not on climate change, or cycling, or the right to public protest, all of which he opposes, but on censorship.

Foucault argued that unreason died with the enlightenment. But the shock-jock phenomenon proves repeatedly that if you make an argument sufficiently idiotic, the sheer scale of stupidity makes it hard to defeat. It was highlighted for me this week by a letter that argued, as Jones does, that anything so small as 0.04 per cent - the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere - couldn't possibly matter. "Please let me know," concluded my correspondent, "how anyone could believe that CO2 is responsible for climate change?"

It's like arguing that a virus is too small to give you AIDS. Or that a lethal dose of heroin, at about 0.0007 per cent of your body weight, couldn't possibly kill.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/cane-toads-of-the-air-thrive-on-stupidity-20110608-1fsuj.html#ixzz1Oj3AOrcB
-------------------------

Gus: slowly but surely, some of the more enlightened media, politicians and serious people are waking up not so much to the idiocy of the shockjocks which we've known for a long time... but to the DAMAGE that these clowns are doing to the planet and to proper knowledge. This has been MY WAR (see letter from top) for a long time — trying to wake decent journalists to the concept of PPM (parts per millions), for one — and to the dangers from the ill-reasoned spruikers. As Farrelly uses AIDS, I used the examples of the influence of headache tablets and alcohol... For example the legal limit for driving under the influence is 0.05, isn't it? At 0.1 we would be quite "legless"...
Having worked once in the rare earth industry, I know that ores that contain 5 PPM ( five parts per million) of such rare elements would be economically exploited...
Of course Elizabeth Farrelly will get a full blast of poison from the shockjocks — and from the shitbeetles of the Murdoch press, those whose vocation in life is to push dead-dung uphill... Especially, in Sydney where the cold days are in and quite below average... conclusion: global warming is a hoax... Yes, the shockjocks are superb local experts and deliberate worldwide ignoramuses because it would kill their false argument to become aware of the entire equation.
Our carbon based economy is adding 2 PPMs net per year of CO2 in the atmosphere. Only idiots would think this would have no influence on climate. Science has demonstrated IRREFUTABLY that CO2 encourages the warming of the atmosphere, thus we're in for global warming. But because things are not equal everywhere, local conditions are not sufficient to show the phenomenon in full. Shockjocks are local experts: they know that if one sees a red-head English woman disembark in Dunkirk, all English women are red-heads... They'll make you believe it too... The power of their poisoned spruik is to hug the mike with "credibility" and capture the largest audience possible to buy the snake oil... In Yourp, in my youth, it was the second-hand warped crockery that they smashed on the floor if no-one wanted to buy at full price... With a smart twist of a clever discount, the spruikers sold the rest of the crooked plates like hot cakes. Nothing new... see toon and letter at top...